stocks, such as anadromous, shared and discrete high seas fish stocks.
21 This is also
supported by the more recent definition of an RFMO included in Article 1(i) of the
PSM Agreement, which only says that it is “an intergovernmental fisheries organization [. . .] that has the competence to establish conservation and management
measures”. Illustrative is moreover the broad concept of a regional fishery body
(RFB) used by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to
denote a mechanism through which States and entities cooperate for the conservation
and management of marine living resources and/or the development of marine
capture fisheries.
22 The broad scope of the concept of an RFB is reflected in the
fact that it not only also covers bodies regulating inland fisheries and aquaculture,
but also the IWC and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
(NAMMCO)—but not other regional instruments and bodies relating to marine
mammals
23
—and even ACAP,
24 which is a treaty aimed at the conservation of
albatross and petrel species against the threats posed by fisheries by-catch in
particular.
RFMO/As are a sub-set of RFBs that can be distinguished from other RFBs on
account of the fact that (1) they relate to marine fisheries, rather than inland fisheries;
and (2) they have a mandate to impose legally binding conservation and management measures on their members or participants, rather than merely exercising an
‘advisory’ mandate (whether primarily science-oriented (e.g. the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)) or management-oriented (e.g. WECAFC).
Moreover, the need for a dual mandate of conservation and management excludes
instruments and bodies that are only aimed at conservation of fish species, for
instance the global MOU on Sharks
25 adopted under the CMS.
26
3.2 Types and Key Distinctions
A principal distinction is that between RFMOs and RFMAs. Whereas the former
establish an intergovernmental organization, the latter commonly establish a Conference of the Parties (COP) or a Meeting of the Parties (MOP) as their principal
decision-making body.
21 See Molenaar (2016), pp. 441–445 for a more comprehensive discussion.
22 See the information at www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16800/en.
23 Billé et al. (2016), p. 29.
24 Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, Canberra, 19 June 2001. In force
1 February 2004 (2588 UNTS 257); as amended, consolidated version at www.acap.aq.
25 Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, Manila, 12 February
2010; as amended. Consolidated version available at www.cms.int/sharks.
26 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979. In
force 1 November 1983 (1651 UNTS 355).
86
E. J. Molenaar
21 This is also
supported by the more recent definition of an RFMO included in Article 1(i) of the
PSM Agreement, which only says that it is “an intergovernmental fisheries organization [. . .] that has the competence to establish conservation and management
measures”. Illustrative is moreover the broad concept of a regional fishery body
(RFB) used by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to
denote a mechanism through which States and entities cooperate for the conservation
and management of marine living resources and/or the development of marine
capture fisheries.
22 The broad scope of the concept of an RFB is reflected in the
fact that it not only also covers bodies regulating inland fisheries and aquaculture,
but also the IWC and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
(NAMMCO)—but not other regional instruments and bodies relating to marine
mammals
23
—and even ACAP,
24 which is a treaty aimed at the conservation of
albatross and petrel species against the threats posed by fisheries by-catch in
particular.
RFMO/As are a sub-set of RFBs that can be distinguished from other RFBs on
account of the fact that (1) they relate to marine fisheries, rather than inland fisheries;
and (2) they have a mandate to impose legally binding conservation and management measures on their members or participants, rather than merely exercising an
‘advisory’ mandate (whether primarily science-oriented (e.g. the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)) or management-oriented (e.g. WECAFC).
Moreover, the need for a dual mandate of conservation and management excludes
instruments and bodies that are only aimed at conservation of fish species, for
instance the global MOU on Sharks
25 adopted under the CMS.
26
3.2 Types and Key Distinctions
A principal distinction is that between RFMOs and RFMAs. Whereas the former
establish an intergovernmental organization, the latter commonly establish a Conference of the Parties (COP) or a Meeting of the Parties (MOP) as their principal
decision-making body.
21 See Molenaar (2016), pp. 441–445 for a more comprehensive discussion.
22 See the information at www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16800/en.
23 Billé et al. (2016), p. 29.
24 Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, Canberra, 19 June 2001. In force
1 February 2004 (2588 UNTS 257); as amended, consolidated version at www.acap.aq.
25 Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, Manila, 12 February
2010; as amended. Consolidated version available at www.cms.int/sharks.
26 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 23 June 1979. In
force 1 November 1983 (1651 UNTS 355).
86
E. J. Molenaar